James Kowen

James Kowen was found dead in his back living room just after midnight on 29 December 1905 after having sat up to read a book by the fire. It was thought that he had been murdered shortly before midnight on 28 December 1905.

He had been horribly mutilated and set on fire with paraffin in a bonfire started with a pile of old clothes and cushions.

His 38-year-old wife was tried twice but the jury failed to agree on a verdict. She was later sent from London to the Norwich Pauper Lunatic Asylum at Drayton, Norfolk after trying to commit suicide and later died in 1927.

She was described as tall and muscular and was a dressmaker.

James Kowen was described as a well-built man and strong and full of vigour at the time of his death.

James Kowen had been a railway servant, employed by the railway company as a foreman of cattle pens that adjoined the railway station next to his house.

James Kowen and his wife had lived together at 29 Railway Street for the previous ten years and had two boys aged 12 and 5. The house that they had lived in was the end house on the left hand side going down Railway Street at the end of which there was no thoroughfare, but a paling and a gate that opened into the railway cattle pens.

The house was described as having an ordinary front door that opened into the front sitting room but had a side passage up to the back of the house and to the back door that opened into the kitchen. From the kitchen one could go through the door into the living room, the back sitting room. From the back sitting room there was then a door that led into the front sitting room. The staircase was in the living room, or the back sitting room. Behind the kitchen, going further down into the yard there was a small coal shed, or cupboard, and a water closet. There was also a big kennel there where their dog, a half-bred collie, was kept, which was said to have been very suspicious of strangers and which generally barked if any person came on the premises and as such it was considered that no one could come down the back of the side passage without actually passing close to the dog in its kennel although it was later claimed that the dog generally minded its own business and was not chained up in the yard.

James Kowen himself earned 26s a week from the railway company but in addition to that he carried on a business in partnership with a man as a dealer in horses and carts, from which it was said he earned a considerable sum of money and it was said by those that knew James Kowen, that he was sometimes seen to have as much as £20 on him at a time which he kept in a long purse known locally as a Long Melford.

He was also said to have made money by agisting cattle on the meadows that adjoined the back of his house which he held under some arrangement with his wife's father.

In total James Kowen earned a considerable sum and was insured by several friendly societies and his death would have brought a considerable sum to his widowed wife. Provisions that he had made included:

• Member of the Railway Benevolent Institution by which his widow would be entitled to £2 on his death and £10 per annum during her widowhood.
• Member of the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows, under which his widow would be entitled to £10 for funeral money and a surplus of £5 or £6.
• Member of the Order of Foresters, under which his widow would be entitled to £12 on his death.
• He was also a member of two other smaller societies under which his widow would be entitled to sums of £2. 10s and £1.
• He also had a joint policy of insurance on the life of himself and his wife under which his wife would be entitled on his death the sum of £25.
• The furniture in their little house was also insured in the Norwich Union Office for the sum of £100.

James Kowen had lived unhappily with his wife who was addicted to drink. It was heard that his wife drank too much at times and that there were frequent quarrels between them during which James Kowen had been guilty of violence towards her. It was also heard that she had previously threatened to leave him and had been heard to say, 'I should like to see him brought home stiff. I would have a good drink over it'. It was said that their quarrels were generally over his wife's drinking and said that his wife as in the habit of drinking secretly and of concealing the fact when possible from James Kowen. It was said that she was in the habit of sending little boys out for bottles of beer and returning the empty bottles so that, as she herself would say, 'Jimmy should not see them'. It was also said that she was also in the habit of keeping whisky in a cupboard.

It was said that her conduct would enrage James Kowen sometimes and that undoubtedly, he was violent towards her on those occasions. It was said that when disturbances did take place between James Kowen and his wife that his wife would draw the attention of her neighbours to the bruises on her arms and her black eyes.

It was also noted that James Kowen's wife was in the habit, whilst drunk, of using strong and at times, filthy language.

It was also heard that during one argument that James Kowen's wife had picked up a chair and thrown it at him, causing a split in a door and breaking the chair. It was further noted that the chair had not been a light chair such as one with a cane seat, but a heavy wooden chair with a leather seat.

It was also heard that James Kowen's wife had been once heard to say, 'I will be hung for him'.

James Kowen's wife was also noted as having in November 1905 induced a married woman to pawn sheets and blankets for her. The woman said that on that occasion James Kowen's wife had complained to her over the way James Kowen treated her and had told her that she intended to leave him and go to London if she could get enough money together.

On the day of the murder, 28 December 1905, a housemaid who was in the habit of going to 29 Railway Street to assist in housework said that she went there a little after 5pm at which time she said that she saw James Kowen's wife, noting that she appeared to have had some drink.

She said that a little later, between 5.30pm and 6pm that a close friend of James Kowen came over and that he, James Kowen and James Kowen's wife had tea and that there was some conversation about them all going out to the theatre together that evening. The maid said that it appeared to her that there had been some arrangements made to that effect but that James Kowen had forgotten about it and that they had discussions about going but that in the end James Kowen declined to go because he wanted to be out to look after a train at about 8pm and there was nobody to look after the children.

A small point was made over the maid having overheard James Kowen tell his friend that his little boy was not well that evening and had had a nose bleed as it was later stated that certain blood stains found on James Kowen's wife's blouse had come from that as she had carried him upstairs.

The maid said that there didn't appear to have been any quarrel or disagreement over the matter and said that the man then left the house at about 6.30pm.

At about 7pm a drover who helped James Kowen with his business and who slept in a shed on the meadow close to the back of the house and who was in the habit of helping James Kowen chop firewood arrived at the house and remained there until past 8pm and said that he saw James Kowen leave the house at about 8pm. He said that he heard James Kowen bid good night to his child and saw him kiss his little boy. He said that when James Kowen went out he was wearing his covert coat and told him that he was going after the train.

James Kowen was seen a little later in the office in the cattle pens and from there it was said that he went to the Orchard public house in Heigham Street where he had 2d of whisky, paying for it in gold and silver that he kept in his pocket.

It was said then that James Kowen went to a friend’s house at 77 Barn Road, arriving at 8.30pm where he remained until 10.50pm and then started home, wearing his covert coat.

It was noted that his home was about a six-minute walk from 77 Barn Road which would have meant that James Kowen would have arrived home at just about 11pm.

His wife said that James Kowen arrived home at about 11pm and went upstairs to the front bedroom where he took off his coat, collar, tie, watch and chain and ring and that he then told her that he had to go outside into the yard.

James Kowen's wife said that she herself had gone to bed between 9.30pm and 10pm and that she heard James Kowen go out to the back and then come back in again. She said that she then heard James Kowen say to her from the bottom of the stairs, ‘There is a nice fire down here, I shall stop and have a read', to which she said that she said, 'Shut the staircase door', as she said that she didn't want to be disturbed as he had neuralgia.

She said that that was the last thing that she knew of his movements until he was found at about 12.10am or 12.15am murdered after she was aroused by the sound of breaking glass and went down to see smoke.

The drover said that on his way home he had passed 29 Railway Street at about 11.20pm and that as he did so he saw a light burning in the front bedroom which was the room that James Kowen's wife had been asleep in. However, at the trial, it was said that two jurors expressed the opinion that he could tell more if he liked.

At about midnight, a girl who lived with her parents next door at 27 Railway Street and who had been out with a young man said that when she arrived home she stayed at her door with him and said goodnight and then passed upstairs to her bedroom which was the corresponding room to James Kowen's wife's room, and actually, adjoined it in the front. She said that within a minute of getting into her bedroom and beginning to undress that she heard cries of 'Fire'.

A man that lived on the opposite side of the street said that he too heard the cries of 'Fire' and said that when he heard them he jumped out of bed  and opened his window and looked across to 29 Railway Street where he saw James Kowen's wife at her front bedroom window with her two children crying out 'Fire'. He said that he then heard James Kowen's wife shout out, 'Jimmy, where is he? Is he on the meadows, or is he with his friend (man from 77 Barn Road)'. It was noted that her remark was important as it indicated that she didn't know where James Kowen was although she had later said that he had told her that he was going to read by the fire.

The man from across the street said that when he went to 29 Railway Street he rushed down the side walk to the back door and looked through the window into the living room and saw two distinct fires, one in the grate and another distinct fire burning in the corner of the room furthest from the door and some distance from the other fire. He said that he then opened the back door, which he said was shut but not locked but said that the smoke and flames immediately drove him back, singing his hair.

He said that he was unable to shut the door and so went round to the front and gave directions for James Kowen's wife and her children to get out of the window. He said that he first took the children, noting that the window was only 10ft 6in from the sill to the ground and then fetched a plank that he put up against the wall and told James Kowen's wife to slide down it, which she did.

However, it was noted that when James Kowen's wife did come down, she had been wearing all her clothes, with the exception of her blouse, that she had been wearing earlier that evening including her ordinary shoes or boots, stockings, stays, underlinen, petticoats and skirt. It was also noted that her children were also partly dressed and later observed that it was for the jury to decide whether it was plausible that James Kowen's wife had got dressed after hearing the cries of fire and had also partly dressed her children.

It was also noted that before getting out of the window herself that she had thrown down a number of articles for the purpose of saving them which were noted as having been mostly her own garments, only including two uniform coats belonging to James Kowen and some of her children’s clothes. It was noted that she even through out two pairs of sheets, a cashbox that contained some documents of title and some other things that were thought to have ordinarily been kept downstairs.

After rescuing James Kowen's wife and their children, the man and a policeman managed to put out the fire. It was said to have been a fierce fire and the police constable was said to have had to use a damp cloth to cover his mouth and was forced to crawl in to the room before he could get to the corner of the room where the second fire was and extinguish it.

James Kowen was then found dead. He was lying on his back with his head in the corner of the room where the second fire had been started. His right side was towards the fireplace with his feet in the middle of the room and it was at once seen by the police constable that the left side of his body and his head had been partly consumed by the fire.

His body was found dressed with the exception of his boots that were found in the room. It was said that it was evident that they had been taken off before his death and that there was a bloodstain in one of them, as if some blood had been splashed into it.

At the spot where James Kowen's body lay a large pool of blood was found, and close by, nearer the door that opened into the front sitting-room, there was another pool of blood. As such, it was thought that the other pool of blood was where James Kowen had been felled and that the one in the corner was where his body had been dragged to. The police then found a claw hammer on the mantlepiece that had evidently been washed but on which there were still signs of blood found where the head was fixed to the handle.

The police said that when they searched James Kowen's body that they found 9s. 7d. in his pocket and also a bloodstain inside the pocket, but no corresponding bloodstain on the outside, suggesting that it had been placed there by a bloody hand searching his pocket.

When the police examined the second fire they found that there was a heap of burnt rubbish against James Kowen's left side, about two bushels in quantity and that amongst it there was James Kowen's covert coat, a railway overcoat that usually hung inside the door to the staircase, a table cloth, anti-macassar, a sofa cushion, a piece of sack, some children's knickerbockers, a child's overcoat and other things which led the police to believe that the bonfire had been made for the purpose of destroying evidence of the murder.

It was further determined that the items had been saturated with paraffin and noted that the spot under the seat of the fire, which was apparently in the corner of the room, had been burnt right through, the floorboards being one inch boards. They had burnt through to the joists which were themselves also partially burnt. The floor was also found otherwise to be stained with paraffin. It was also noted as fact that paraffin oil was used in one or two lamps in the house.

It was further noted that the man that supplied the paraffin only usually supplied about two pints a week and that there was gas in the living room or back sitting room and that the lamp was only used, seldomly, in the front sitting room. The other paraffin lamp was said to have been used in the children's room but to have sometimes been used in the kitchen. The man that supplied the paraffin said that he supplied two pints on Christmas Day and a further two pints on 27 December 1905. However, when the oil can was examined, it was found to have been empty.

There were 28 wounds on his head, six of which might have been dealt with by a hammer that was found in the room on the mantlepiece. An axe and a chopper bearing blood stains were also later found in the coal shed outside.

The post mortem showed that James Kowen had eight incised wounds on the left side and back of his head, one of which actually cut through the bone of his skull. On the right side he had six wounds which were apparently done with a blunt instrument that had driven the bone of his skull right through into his bone. There were also wounds in the centre of his forehead that were apparently caused by a blunt instrument that had driven the bone of his skull right through into his brain. He also had a broken nose and several of his teeth had been knocked out. Altogether it was found that he had 26 wounds to his head, face and throat as well as evidence of a recent contusion to his chest as though there had been some pressure upon it.

It was said that all of the contused wounds that were said to have been caused by a blunt instrument could have been caused by the hammer that was found on the mantlepiece and examination of it found that the head of the hammer fitted some of the wounds exactly. It was further stated that the incised wounds and cuts were all such as might have been caused by an axe or a chopper.

An axe and chopper were found soon after in the coalhouse. When the axe was first seen by a policeman, he said that upon being turned over that he found it to be still wet with blood on one side, the side that was lying on the coal or wood. The policeman said that the chopper didn't show any signs of blood, but when it too was later examined it was found to have also have blood on it.

It was also found that on the left hand side as one entered the small coal shed, just where a person might put their left hand when going into the dark place, that there was a blood stain on the wall, the appearance of which suggested that it had been caused by a bloody rag or duster having been put against the wall.

It was heard that after James Kowen's body was found that it was first thought that it might have been the body of another man and when James Kowen's wife was told, she said nothing. However, when the woman that saw the body went back, she saw that the body had brown socks and it was heard that when she told James Kowen's wife that she thought that the body was that of James Kowen, she said, 'Never, what shall I do?', and then asked, 'Is he burnt much?' to which the woman said that it looked like he had a mask on.

The woman said that when she asked James Kowen's wife how it had happened, that she said, 'I went to bed and covered my head on account of neuralgia. James Kowen came home and came up and took off his watch and chain and rings and went down to the back. He came in again and said, 'You have a nice fire. I will stop and have a read', I heard nothing more, as I covered my head again, and I was awakened by a cracking of glass. I went down. The smoke was so much I had to go back, and that is when I knocked on the wall for your daughter. I wished I had stopped up and waited for him, and this would never have happened. What a terrible death to be burnt'.

However, it was noted that she at no time made any enquiry as to whether it was James Kowen in the room.

When she made a statement to the chief-constable she said James Kowen had had a pain in his chest lately and that while reading he might have been taken suddenly ill and might have fallen on the fire.

It was also noted that when she had spoken to James Kowen's friend from 77 Barn Road that when she had told him of her going downstairs and opening the door to the living room and seeing the blaze and then having gone back upstairs that when he had asked her whether she was undressed that she had told him that she was wearing her chemise. However, it was stated that as a fact, her nightdress was found on the floor of her bedroom.

It was also noted that the kitchen showed signs of smoke and burning, apparently caused when the neighbour had rushed in to the house and had opened the door between the kitchen and the living room, but that the staircase showed no signs of smoke or fire damage, suggesting that the door had not been opened as James Kowen's wife suggested, having resulted in the smoke driving her back, as the wallpaper in the staircase was found to be perfectly clean.

The police additionally noted that after putting out the fire, when they went up to the bedrooms they found that the candles were burning in the front bedroom and that the paraffin lamp was alight in the children's bedroom and said that it appeared strange that James Kowen's wife might suddenly awaken, find her house on fire and then take the time to light the candles in her room and also the paraffin lamp in her children's bedroom.

When James Kowen's wife was arrested after the inquest, she said, 'I never planned to murder him or do him any harm at all'.

The defence at his wife's trial said that the murder was committed by a stranger for the sake of robbery and stress was laid on the fact that there were no bloodstains found on his wife's clothing or on the stairs leading to the bedroom from where she was rescued.

The court heard that in his dealings as a cattleman and a dealer he often associated with rough characters who might easily have obtained admission to his house and murder him in the course of robbing him.

It was said at the trial that the question was whether James Kowen had been murdered by his wife, or whether it was a case in which a person from outside had come into the room and committed the murder and then left after cleaning the murder weapons and setting fire to the bonfire and dumping James Kowen's body on it.

It was further questioned whether it was probable that James Kowen might have left the back door unlocked after he returned from the water closet and that even if he had, would it have been possible for a person to have known the door was unlocked and then to have opened it and entered the room and sneak up on James Kowen and then strike him from behind. The court heard that it seemed clear, or in all events probable that whoever committed the murder had dealt James Kowen one or more blows on the back of the head in the first instance with some instrument like the chopper or axe and that after he had fallen down bleeding that someone must have used the hammer in a furious manner upon his face and head. It was then also noted that even if James Kowen had fallen asleep, would the murder or murderer have known that he was asleep? It was also questioned whether a person, after having committed the murder would have taken the time to have collected the items together that they had for the bonfire and poured paraffin on them when there was the chance of them being caught, knowing that there was a light burning in the front bedroom and possibly also known that James Kowen's wife, a large muscular woman, and their two children were also in the house?

When the drover gave evidence at the trial, he said that he had known James Kowen for about seven years and that for five years he had been employed by him, saying that his duty was to feed the horses in the meadow for which he was paid 4s a week and given his meals at James Kowen's house. He said that he also did odd jobs in the yard such as cutting wood and had last used the hatchet and chopper in the coal house on the afternoon of 28 December 1905, after which he had put them back, saying that when he did so that there was no blood on them.

He said that he fetched two pints of paraffin oil on Christmas Day for James Kowen's wife and noted that the oil can was kept under the sink in the wash house.

He said that he had been sleeping in the shed in the meadow for about six weeks and that nobody else slept there and that he had never see a stranger there at night.

He said that he had been to James Kowen's house twice during the day on 28 December 1905 and went back at about 7pm and had something to eat in the washhouse. He said that he later saw James Kowen come out of the front room with his fawn coat on and later saw him at about 7.50pm at the cattle pens and then at 8.30pm in his office after which he went to Hellesdon with some sheep and then went to the Cardinal's Cap public house where he remained until closing time after which he went back to his shed which he said he reached at about 1.20pm. He added that as he passed James Kowen's house that he saw a light on in the front bedroom but did not hear a dog bark. When he was asked whether the dog was a fierce dog, he said 'No', and said that whilst it would bark at strangers, it would lie down if told in a moment. He said that he later awoke at 8.30am and went to feed the horse and then heard about the murder.

It was also noted that the dog was not chained in the yard and that it was considered more of a stock dog than a house dog, used for driving the sheep and that someone had stolen its collar some weeks before.

A policeman gave evidence at the trial stating that he charged James Kowen's wife with murder at 10pm on 31 December 1905. He said that when he saw James Kowen's wife earlier she had seemed cool  and collected and said that when he examined her fawn coat he took out a matchbox and papers from the right hand pocket and said that the papers were folded around the box and that there was wet blood on them.

The police surgeon gave evidence about finding the blood inside the pocket of James Kowen which had no corresponding mark outside. He also said that he found blood stains inside the pocket of the fawn overcoat.

He went on to say that he examined James Kowen's wife's blouse and found that it had been sponged over at the top part but not at the lower part and that it had blood stains on it at the upper part. He said that there were a large number of little spots of blood that had all more or less been diffused by sponging. He said that they covered the front of the blouse over the left shoulder and went nearly the whole way across the front and that he found one spot that had not been sponged  that was concealed amongst the gathers. He said that he could tell that it had not been sponged because it was not shiny. However, when the police surgeon was asked whether the blood could have been caused by a child with a nosebleed as the mother had carried it upstairs, he said that it might have been if the child had sneezed, noting that there was no characteristic about it.

When the prosecution closed its arguments, it said that it was common ground that James Kowen had been murdered with the hammer and chopper or axe and that he murderer or murderers had then started the fire with the purpose of destroying evidence of the crime. However, the prosecution then said that after taking the evidence as a whole that it was impossible to believe that any intruder from the outside could have inflicted the injuries on James Kowen, caused the bonfire and then leave the house without James Kowen's wife having been disturbed in her bedroom which was immediately above. The prosecution then stated however that the evidence was consistent with their theory that James Kowen's wife had inflicted the injuries on James Kowen and then caused the bonfire and then called for help.

When the defence presented their case they concurred that it was unusual for there to be so much common ground, that being that James Kowen was beaten to death and then set on fire to dispose of the evidence with the use of paraffin in an attempt to make it look like an accident.

The defence then noted that whilst there was an army of witnesses that the reason that they had been able to get through them so quickly was that neither side disputed the evidence and that the argument was not over the facts of the case but over the inference drawn from those facts. The prosecution then said that there was no proof of guilt and postulated to suppose that if James Kowen's had had no defence and that all of the thirty-six prosecution witnesses had given their evidence without contradiction, that even then, when the evidence was taken as a whole that whilst the facts might raise inferences, conjectures or suspicions, that they did not prove anything.

The defence then stated that the jury should consider the antecedent facts and first considered the issue of insurance. The defence noted that it was claimed by the prosecution that James Kowen's wife stood to benefit from the death of James Kowen, but then questioned whether that was necessarily so, stating that James Kowen's wife had a husband who was in receipt of a good wage, a man who in addition to earning 26s a week received plenty of money from his business dealings and that he was considered a rich man and that following his death, most of that money would cease. The defence stated that whilst she might get £25 from one association, £1 from another, £10 a year during widowhood and £12 from another policy, how would that compensate for the loss of her husband who represented a regular source of money that would suddenly be cut off?.

When the issue of the broken chair was considered, the defence noted that even if she did throw it, that did not mean that she wanted to murder her husband and further noted that the chair had in fact broken at a place where one might otherwise expect it to break if a person had been sitting on it in normal use, a factor not fully accounted for. The defence noted that James Kowen's wife's statement about wishing that James Kowen might be 'brought home stiff' was simply the product of an unbridled tongue was nothing more than an unconscious exaggeration. The defence then asked if any angry person who might say, 'I wish you were dead' and that person was found dead within a week, whether that could be relied on as evidence?

The defence also noted that the reports of their arguments was exaggerated and that it was common for couples to argue all over the country and that hat did not imply murderous intent.

When consideration was given to James Kowen's wife’s statements when she was seen at the window, 'Jimmy, Jimmy, where is he, is he on the meadow or is he with his friend', it was noted that her first thought was for her husband and that she had reason to believe that he might have left the house which was evidenced by another thing was heard to have said, 'I believe my house is on fire. I don't know whether Jimmy is inside or not, I heard him go out the backdoor, but I did not hear him come in'. The defence noted that it was also heard that at that time her arms were bare and that she was wearing her chemise.

The defence then considered her behaviour after the fire was discovered in that after her children were let down through the window by a sheet that, as there was no immediate danger upstairs that she had then  got dressed and throw items out of the window. It was further noted that when James Kowen's wife had come down from the window that she had been wearing a black shirt and her black blouse but that earlier in the day she had been wearing a brown skirt and her black blouse that was fully buttoned up and so she must have changed her skirt at some point and it was further noted that a woman had seen her at her window with bare arms in her chemise.

After the defence outlined their view on the certain known facts, they then stated that the prosecution had been very busy guessing on the shifting, shelving sand of guess work, noting that there was an answer for every guess the prosecution had made.

The defence stated that when the police entered the small room in which James Kowen was murdered, which was 12ft by 9ft that there was a lot of blood and stated that as there was blood all over the place that it followed that the murderer must have been covered in blood too, and a lot of it, noting that there was no blood on James Kowen's wife's clothes or upstairs.

The defence added that there were 26 wounds and it was the prosecution’s case that they were all inflicted by one woman.

The defence noted that there was also the suggestion of James Kowen having been throttled and of there being a mark on his chest as though someone had put their knee there which implied that James Kowen's wife would have had to have attempted to throttle James Kowen manually during a struggle, which they said was improbable. The defence also questioned whether it was plausible that James Kowen's would have had the strength or the courage to carry out the murder and also to move James Kowen's body across the room.

When the defence considered the three weapons, they stated that there was no evidence that the axe had been used in the murder, noting that whilst there was blood on the lower side of it, there was none on the cutting edge and it was noted that there was no wet blood on the chopper. The defence also then noted that whilst the hammer was the murder weapon, the fact that it had been washed did not implicate James Kowen's wife as it was clear that whoever had murdered James Kowen had attempted to make it look like an accident and as such pointed as much to anyone else as it did to James Kowen's wife.

The defence further noted that there were no bloodstains in the staircase leading upstairs and stated that if she had murdered James Kowen then there would have been bloodstains. The defence then stated that it was impossible that a woman could have committed the crime, become bedabbled with blood and paraffin and to have then passed up the staircase without taking any trace with her.

As the defence made their case, they stated that they were attempting to be logical, and noted  the fact that the case was initially dominated by the dog which was said to have been a ferocious animal that would bark at anyone but which was later found to have been a dog that minded its own business and did not take notice of anyone.

The defence also noted that there were two opportunities for the murderer to have gotten into the house, the first being when James Kowen was upstairs taking off his collar, and the second when he went outside to the water closet.

The defence noted that the prosecution argument was that if the murder was carried out by someone else that the noise of the attack would have woken James Kowen's wife up and maybe the neighbours, but said that they had an answer to that and stated that it was known that there was not such noise that the neighbours were alerted and so it was not for the prosecution to say that there was that volume of noise that James Kowen's wife might have been reasonably expected to have heard it.

When the defence noted the fact that there was no smoke in the staircase, they noted that the kitchen door into the living room had been opened much longer whilst the staircase door was only opened momentarily and that there was evidence that smoke had travelled up the staircase as one of the women that saw James Kowen's wife at the window said that she also saw smoke in her bedroom which the defence said must have come up the staircase.

The defence said that on consideration of an alternative motive for the crime, they would be doing exactly the same as the prosecution, and guessing, and stated that it was known that James Kowen was a dealer and accustomed to meeting rough characters and that he was accustomed to handling large sums of money in his Long Melford purse and that some rough customer acquainted with his habits might have entered his house whilst he was upstairs or in the closet and then secreted themselves in the parlour and then murdered him. The defence said that that was all a possibility, as was the suggestion that James Kowen's wife had committed the murder.

The defence then added that there were two other things in that theory that needed to be borne in mind:

1. First that there would have been no need for a murderer from outside to have cleaned their hands before fleeing.
2. Secondly that once outside and the murderer had got over the meadows and the railway line that they could have got clear away as the crime would have at first looked like an accident.

When the defence summed up they pointed out that the jury had three views, first that the case was proven and James Kowen's wife was guilty, second that if they were not convinced beyond reasonable doubt then she was not guilty, and third, the course that was taken in Scottish courts, that being that the case was not proven and that in their point of view that the verdict would again be one of not guilty.

The defence then noted that it was both an individual responsibility to return a verdict but also a collective responsibility and then reminded them that they were deciding whether James Kowen's wife was to live or die an quoted Shakespeare, saying, 'Firm and irrevocable is my doom which I have passed upon her' and pointed out that that doom was irrevocable.

In the judges summing up at the first trial he said that there were many inconsistencies with the idea that that the murderer was a stranger from outside, noting that he found it unlikely that a stranger would  have stayed to make a bonfire, wash an axe, chopper and hammer and put them in their proper places.

He said that there were many facts in the case that were not disputed. He then noted that it had been noted that there was no direct evidence against James Kowen's wife and that the evidence was what was called circumstantial which he said meant that no human eye saw the murder committed. He then noted that they had lived in Railway Street for nearly 13 years and were well known and that it was known that James Kowen's wife was described by some as being given to drink but also that some witnesses said that they had never seen her drunk. He added that it was also shown that James Kowen had in the past been known to treat his wife to a certain degree violently.

The judge then considered the issues of funds and noted that James Kowen was not short of money and that he was a careful man and had payed into several societies such that his widow would benefit upon his death.

He then noted that a woman that had been out at a party had said that on the night of the murder she had got home in Railway Street at midnight and had seen the light on in the front bedroom window and that the alarm for the fire was raised at 12.10am and that the fire was put out at 12.20am meaning that the fire could not have burned for more than twenty minutes.

The judge then said that the question was, who caused the fire? and asked wither it was James Kowen's wife or some stranger. When the judge considered the possibility of a stranger having committed the murder he said that the difficulty was that upon having murdered James Kowen and then either taking the money, or failing to find it, and being in a house where there was a light burning in the front bedroom, if not also elsewhere and that there were other people in the house and other houses close by, would a murderer remain for a single moment on the premises and lay themselves open to detection at every moment. The judge went on and asked why the murderer would stay in the house when every moment he spent there was a moment of peril, noting that he must have stayed for a considerable time collecting the clothes that were hanging in the cupboard and applying the paraffin and that if the crime were committed by a stranger, why would they take the additional time to clean the hammer and replace it on the mantlepiece, asking why that would matter to a stranger? Adding that he thought that the great object would have been to get away.

The judge then considered the axe and the chopper and noted that it was accepted that they were not sharp and that the axe was too big to have inflicted the wounds, and said yet they both had blood on them, one having wet blood and said that whilst it was not known what role they played in the murder, that it seemed that they had at least been handled by the murderer. He then said that if the object of the murder outside was to get away as quickly as possible, then why would they go to the trouble of putting the axe and chopper back in their proper place? adding that it was beyond his comprehension.

The judge considered other aspects of the case and then stated that it was for the jury to decide their verdict based on the evidence heard, however they failed to agree on a verdict.

The first trial was at the Norwich Assizes in March 1906 with the jury failing to agree a verdict and the case was then adjourned to the next Assizes. The next Assizes in Norwich was the Summer Assizes on 10 June 1906 but the jury again failed to agree to a verdict and Nolle Prosequi was entered on 5 July 1906 and James Kowen's wife was discharged. The trial on each occasion lasted four days.

It was noted that at the first trial which opened on 17 March 1906 that despite the wretched weather, with snow falling heavily, that a considerable crowd had assembled for an hour before the court opened in order to get into the public gallery and that before 10am the best seats in the gallery and next to the Grand Jury were occupied by a number of women and others.

James Kowen's wife died on 5 February 1927 aged 58 in Hellesdon.

Railway Street has since been demolished but was off Heigham Street between Barkers Street and Blackhorse Street.